Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 80

Thread: Some Interesting Numbers as We Watch the Labor Agreement Unfold

  1. #1
    Member Since
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura, Ca.
    Posts
    2,605
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 6
    Given: 1

    Default Some Interesting Numbers as We Watch the Labor Agreement Unfold


    0 Not allowed!
    hey gang,

    I ran across some interesting information on Forbes.com that I compiled and thought I would put up here for some comparison purposes.

    It all has to do with the amount of money in the NFL these days and where that money is being spent. These numbers are from the 2009 season.

    First, a little information about the numbers.

    Current Value = The latest value of the team
    Revenue = The amount of gross income the team received in 2009
    Operating Income = The amount of money left over after expenses but before taxes and interest payments
    Player Expense = The amount of money spent on player salaries, benefits and bonuses
    Gate Receipts = The amount of money from ticket sales including club seating
    Margin Percentage = (not really correct here, but works) this is the percentage of operating income against total revenue
    Players Percentage = the percentage of player costs to revenue
    Overhead = the amount of money that was spent on overhead including stadium costs and everything else that it takes to run the team

    Ok so here are the best and worse along with the Chiefs in each category

    Current Value:
    Dallas Cowboys = 1.8 billion
    KC Chiefs = 965 Million 20th overall
    Jaguars = 725 million

    Revenue
    Cowboys = 420 million
    Chiefs = 235 million 23rd overall
    Lions = 210 million

    Operating Income
    Cowboys = 143.3 million
    Chiefs = 47.8 Million 6th overall
    Dolphins = -7.7 million

    Player Expense
    Giants 166 million
    Chiefs 111 million (we were last in this category)

    Gate Receipts
    Cowboys 112 million
    Chiefs 53 million 16th overall
    Raiders 34 million

    Overhead costs
    Cowboys = 133.7 million
    Chiefs = 76.2 million 14th
    Bills = 57.8 million

    I found this interesting. It looks like the owners could learn a few things from the owner of the Bills on how to get costs down.

    Overall, here are some interesting numbers league wide to think about.

    All the teams in the NFL have a combined value of 32.6 BILLION dollars

    All the teams in the NFL collected 8 billion in revenue for the 2009 season

    All the teams in the NFL ended up with 1 billion in operating income. Interestingly enough, this is what the owners have stated they want to keep that amount at.

    Players have received 4.494 billion in expenses, or 56.06% of total revenue.

    Overhead, or somtimes called operating costs are in excess of 2.45 billion dollars collectively or 30% of revenue.

    For those of you who are business savvy, those numbers will mean something to you. For those of you who see that the players only get 56% and really don't know much about business you will think the players should get more. Interestingly enough, with a margin of 13.3% overall, the NFL is healthy, but not getting overly rich.

    Putting that in perspective, if you owned your own business in construction. If your company made 100K in revenue in one year, you would have made 13K for your troubles. Its all about volume.

    It appears some teams could work hard to get their costs down and save some money, which is another of the owners demands as they ask the players to pick up flights and hotel rooms on their own.

    Anyway, I thought this information was interesting. If you want to see the numbers for yourself. You can visit:

    #32 Jacksonville Jaguars - Forbes.com and walk backwards through each team from the end forward.


    Are you man enough? Eric Berry? Apparently Not!

  2. #51
    Member Since
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    81
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Seek View Post
    What I see is the Greed of the Players from the previous CBA not working for the owners, and the owners then saying we can't continue under this structure anymore. We tried, Sorry.

    I have seen this same example in the corporate world. A company contractly owes an employee a certain bonus. However, if they pay the bonus, they will either have to let someone go, or let that person go if they pay the bonus. People either agree to not take the bonus and keep their job, or go find a new job.

    Again, The only concern I have with this whole thing, is for our Chiefs. I do not want them becoming the small market no body team like the Royals. Where they have to catch lightning in the bottle through a draft and then kiss that player bye bye once their contract is up. I do not want the Chiefs skipping out on being competitive because they are having to cut budgets due to paying the players more of the profits lost under the old CBA.
    But this is factually incorrect. The NFL took in more money than ever. The NFL owners took in more raw profit. What has happened - note, in this poor economic time for our entire country - is the rate of growth of their profit is down, and that is the main 'problem' the owners are bemoaning.

    You hear it ever time Goodell speaks about "growing the game" and you see it every time a game is scheduled to play overseas. You also find it when the owners blame their lockout on "rising player costs". Say what? We all know that the player costs are a fixed percentage of the total profit under the old CBA, so how in the world are player costs 'rising'?

    In the owners' twisted words, what they are saying is they don't like the percentage based agreement ( which aligns with their 'proposal' they made before the NFLPA decertified ). The owners see the NFL revenue growing, but each time it does, so does the amount that goes to the players. What the owners want is to stop paying the players a percentage, replacing it with a fixed amount, and take in all the extra profit for themselves - again, see their 'proposal' they made, as this is exactly what the model they used.

    And yes, that is the owners' greed, plain & simple.

  3. #52
    Member Since
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,049
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 128
    Given: 4

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Xanathol View Post
    But this is factually incorrect. The NFL took in more money than ever. The NFL owners took in more raw profit. What has happened - note, in this poor economic time for our entire country - is the rate of growth of their profit is down, and that is the main 'problem' the owners are bemoaning.

    You hear it ever time Goodell speaks about "growing the game" and you see it every time a game is scheduled to play overseas. You also find it when the owners blame their lockout on "rising player costs". Say what? We all know that the player costs are a fixed percentage of the total profit under the old CBA, so how in the world are player costs 'rising'?

    In the owners' twisted words, what they are saying is they don't like the percentage based agreement ( which aligns with their 'proposal' they made before the NFLPA decertified ). The owners see the NFL revenue growing, but each time it does, so does the amount that goes to the players. What the owners want is to stop paying the players a percentage, replacing it with a fixed amount, and take in all the extra profit for themselves - again, see their 'proposal' they made, as this is exactly what the model they used.

    And yes, that is the owners' greed, plain & simple.
    Facts based on what analysis. One of the biggest arguments I have been hearing is that the Owners are saying they are not all making proifts needed to substain the CBA. The players are saying BS, but have no way of knowing this as a fact unless the owners show the players their ledgers in which they are not. So factually how do you know they are making more and more profits, and is this fact constant accross all NFL teams or an average based on a the profits of a few Large market teams.

    Again, My concern with this whole situation is not the owners or players holding out. I don't care who gets paid as long as the integrity and parodity of the NFL as a whole remains.

    It may be fact that all big market teams are increasing in profits thus the entire NFL, but in the long run it is not the same for 2/3 of the NFL. What this lock out may be creating is the NBA and MLB where the big market teams outbid everyone because they have the most jack.

    This lock out benefits the Chiefs more than it does the big market teams.

  4. #53
    Member Since
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    81
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    "We are not losing money; we have never said that." - NFL VP

    "They believe they are entitled to make money every year, even in the midst of disastrous recessions."
    - Washing Post article

    "the margins are tight" - Roger Goodell

    "Packers say player costs rising faster than profits" - bizfootball.com

    "Seriously Mr Goodell, Spare Us" - just a good article on the rhetoric of Goodell from sportsfan.org



    And that's all hits on the first page of a search.

    The whole issue has always been about the owners' greed, being jealous that the players get a percentage cut instead of a flat amount, while the NFL revenue is growing. In other words, they see the 43+% growth from 2006 to today and instead of thinking "great - we all made more" they think "those ******* players and their percentage cut - if we could get rid of that, we could have made even more of that money for ourselves".

    I'm as conservative as it gets, but the owners in the NFL are personifying the evil and greed of big business rich guys. That's why it shocks me to see people side with the owners; most of the time its just a bit of ignorance on the matter at hand but sometimes its a lot worse - similar views...


    *edit - almost forgot; for the clubs claiming they aren't making enough, why don't they open the books? This is not a typical employer / employee business model - its closer to a partnership with the private owners club and the NFLPA* - but even more worrisome is the last major labor issue showed that when the books were opened, the owners were expensing personal expenses, such as vacation travel, family 'bonus' payrolls, etc, to claim a low profit margin. Its called cooking the books and they've done it before; it would be foolish to think they are not doing it again, when they refuse to open their books. And pre-emptive comment, check Green Bay's data - they wrote off bad investments ( allowed as they are publicly owned ) which lowered their profit margin.
    Last edited by Xanathol; 06-14-2011 at 02:12 PM.

  5. #54
    Member Since
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,049
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 128
    Given: 4

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Xanathol View Post
    "We are not losing money; we have never said that." - NFL VP

    "They believe they are entitled to make money every year, even in the midst of disastrous recessions."
    - Washing Post article

    "the margins are tight" - Roger Goodell

    "Packers say player costs rising faster than profits" - bizfootball.com

    "Seriously Mr Goodell, Spare Us" - just a good article on the rhetoric of Goodell from sportsfan.org



    And that's all hits on the first page of a search.

    The whole issue has always been about the owners' greed, being jealous that the players get a percentage cut instead of a flat amount, while the NFL revenue is growing. In other words, they see the 43+% growth from 2006 to today and instead of thinking "great - we all made more" they think "those ******* players and their percentage cut - if we could get rid of that, we could have made even more of that money for ourselves".

    I'm as conservative as it gets, but the owners in the NFL are personifying the evil and greed of big business rich guys. That's why it shocks me to see people side with the owners; most of the time its just a bit of ignorance on the matter at hand but sometimes its a lot worse - similar views...


    *edit - almost forgot; for the clubs claiming they aren't making enough, why don't they open the books? This is not a typical employer / employee business model - its closer to a partnership with the private owners club and the NFLPA* - but even more worrisome is the last major labor issue showed that when the books were opened, the owners were expensing personal expenses, such as vacation travel, family 'bonus' payrolls, etc, to claim a low profit margin. Its called cooking the books and they've done it before; it would be foolish to think they are not doing it again, when they refuse to open their books. And pre-emptive comment, check Green Bay's data - they wrote off bad investments ( allowed as they are publicly owned ) which lowered their profit margin.
    Okay using your article, We are not losing money.

    So using your very first article.

    Grubman said that since players get a percentage of revenue, while owners bear the cost of new ventures, clubs could increase income and still see tighter margins.
    “We have a healthy business,” Grubman said today during a lunch with reporters in New York. “We are not losing money; we have never said that. We do not have a healthy business model.”
    Owners voted in 2008 to end the current labor agreement, which is due to expire March 3, saying it didn’t account for costs, such as those of building stadiums. Jeff Pash, the league’s chief negotiator, said the sides are still talking about when to meet next.

    Where does this make the Owners Greedy? Yes, they want to make more money, just as the the players do. They are clearling stating that under the current agreement, the players are getting a percentage that out ways the cost of running the business and that the split in revenue does not account for that, such as funding the stadium etc... Where does the Owner recoup this money for expenses. Charge the fans more money in which a certain percentage of that goes back to the players and angers the fans.

    The next answer will be cutting cost in signing competitive players as we all know, you over pay for Free agents. The big market teams with bigger pocket books get the key players, while the smaller market teams become the training grounds.

    Again, I am on both sides of this, and do think the players deserve better benefits and structured retirement plans etc.., but I can see long term this being a losing situation for the NFL as a whole and more specifically the Chiefs and other small market teams.

  6. #55
    Member Since
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    10,208
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 491
    Given: 83

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Xanathol View Post
    "We are not losing money; we have never said that." - NFL VP

    "They believe they are entitled to make money every year, even in the midst of disastrous recessions."
    - Washing Post article

    "the margins are tight" - Roger Goodell

    "Packers say player costs rising faster than profits" - bizfootball.com

    "Seriously Mr Goodell, Spare Us" - just a good article on the rhetoric of Goodell from sportsfan.org



    And that's all hits on the first page of a search.

    The whole issue has always been about the owners' greed, being jealous that the players get a percentage cut instead of a flat amount, while the NFL revenue is growing. In other words, they see the 43+% growth from 2006 to today and instead of thinking "great - we all made more" they think "those ******* players and their percentage cut - if we could get rid of that, we could have made even more of that money for ourselves".

    I'm as conservative as it gets, but the owners in the NFL are personifying the evil and greed of big business rich guys. That's why it shocks me to see people side with the owners; most of the time its just a bit of ignorance on the matter at hand but sometimes its a lot worse - similar views...


    *edit - almost forgot; for the clubs claiming they aren't making enough, why don't they open the books? This is not a typical employer / employee business model - its closer to a partnership with the private owners club and the NFLPA* - but even more worrisome is the last major labor issue showed that when the books were opened, the owners were expensing personal expenses, such as vacation travel, family 'bonus' payrolls, etc, to claim a low profit margin. Its called cooking the books and they've done it before; it would be foolish to think they are not doing it again, when they refuse to open their books. And pre-emptive comment, check Green Bay's data - they wrote off bad investments ( allowed as they are publicly owned ) which lowered their profit margin.
    You act like the greed is only from one side. Your 100% right the owners have been greedy from the start. They are in this whole mess because of greed from the owners but this is no excuse for the greed coming form the players side of things.

    The players have said they want more benfits and less ota for "health concerns" Less Otas mean less work. They also have said they won't give a dime back unless the owners open there books. Meaning they want something for nothing. THIS IS GREED. They have not once dropped there health concerns even after the owners backed off there 18 game season. I don't no about you but where I come from in negations you give a little to get a little. You don't say we want this but we also want to keep what we have now.

    As for why the owners don't just open the books mindset. NBA players who went through this back in 1999 have stated that it did not help them. It just leads to fights over how much is enough for one side to make. The owners in the NBA did open there books what happened they MISSED HALF THERE SEASON. It's not a clear if they would open there books this whole thing would be settled. It would just lead to fighting over the numbers as it did in the NBA.

    As for you comment about those who side with the owners being out of ignorance I will just say I have no respect for that type of if you don't agree with me your stupid mindset. This is a situation where there is not one side is right one side is wrong. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean there ignorant. It just means they have anther opinion of the matter. The truth is there is no good guy bad guy in this matter. If EITHER (that means OWNERS AND PLAYERS) side wanted to get a deal done they would have one by now.

    The good news is they seem to finally be getting down to talking about a deal and not about how bad the other side is. I think we will see a deal done by the first week of July.
    ​BAN ROY


  7. #56
    Member Since
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Santiago de Chile
    Posts
    262
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 4
    Given: 1

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    I've read an interesting article about the margins, it was very sound to me. http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2011/...evenue-sharing
    It makes sense that are a few teams that have great incomes, and others that can't past red numbers. The problem is that incomes per team aren't a factor to ponder in salary bottom. A team should be able to reduce their salary costs, but also they shouldn't pay less than a certain minimum per player.
    The best Chilean fan.
    Follow me on twitter @ChileanChief

  8. #57
    Member Since
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    81
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Seek View Post
    Where does this make the Owners Greedy? Yes, they want to make more money, just as the the players do. They are clearling stating that under the current agreement, the players are getting a percentage that out ways the cost of running the business and that the split in revenue does not account for that, such as funding the stadium etc... Where does the Owner recoup this money for expenses. Charge the fans more money in which a certain percentage of that goes back to the players and angers the fans.
    But that's not what they said - they said, quote, "rising player costs", which we know, the percentage is not rising. What is rising is the raw, total amount the players are getting ( because they get a percentage of the rising total revenue ) and the owners want that for themselves - that's the greed in the matter. They are trying to say that costs too have risen, but check the nation's inflation rates against that 40%+ increase in revenue the NFL saw, and it just doesn't add up.

    Furthermore, check the CBA - most expenses are already covered in the off the top percentage that the owners get. If you check out the infamous 'proposal' the owners made, they wanted virtually all expenses covered in the off the top money ( that's where the going from 1 to 2 billion off the top figures came from ). Of course, you've also got owners of teams like the Bengals who tell the media that they need the money to pay for stadiums... did ya know that tax payers paid for the Bengals' stadium, complete with clauses for taxpayers to fund "holographic replays", if other teams received them?

    Quote Originally Posted by matthewschiefs View Post
    As for you comment about those who side with the owners being out of ignorance I will just say I have no respect for that type of if you don't agree with me your stupid mindset.
    Ignorance is the lack of knowledge. I simply stated that one of the conditions I find where people are siding with the owners are when people simply do not know the facts of the matter; they are ignorant to the situation. If that's an insult to you, well, there's not much I can say to that.

  9. #58
    Member Since
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    10,208
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 491
    Given: 83

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Xanathol View Post

    Ignorance is the lack of knowledge. I simply stated that one of the conditions I find where people are siding with the owners are when people simply do not know the facts of the matter; they are ignorant to the situation. If that's an insult to you, well, there's not much I can say to that.
    What you are saying is pretty much if someone does not agree with you then they don't no what there talking about. It's that mindset that I have a problem with.

    The fact of the matter is that BOTH the owners and the players have done the same thing. TRIED TO GET A BETTER DEAL FOR THEMSELVES. While the owners are saying give me more so are the PLAYERS. There are some legitimate arguments for the owners to get some of what they want there are some legitimate arguments for the players to get some of what they want. The problem has been neither side wanted to give anything up to get what they wanted. THAT'S OWNERS AND PLAYERS.
    ​BAN ROY


  10. #59
    Member Since
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Read the name dumbass!!
    Posts
    13,343
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 24
    Given: 29

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    They are both wrong, Im pro lockout!!
    The only reason a beer sweats around Canada is because he's decided it will be the next beer he drinks.

  11. #60
    Member Since
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,049
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 128
    Given: 4

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Rumor has it that the judge told both sides that if he makes his ruling, One side will lose big time, but did not specify who and strongly suggested they work this out.

    What you are probably seeing is both sides giving a little, which in the end will be the best answer in my opinion.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Chiefs and Jackson Reach Agreement
    By Vanilla Garilla in forum KC Chiefs News and Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-08-2009, 12:15 PM
  2. Help With Seat Numbers at Arrowhead
    By oregonchieffan58 in forum The Locker Room
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-08-2009, 11:00 AM
  3. LT Numbers at Arrowhead.
    By McLovin in forum KC Chiefs News and Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-02-2007, 01:56 PM
  4. Labor Day Weekend
    By luv in forum The Locker Room
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 09-03-2007, 10:43 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •